Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery/disclosure

Legal area

Court

2 Feb 2026

HENRY SHING HIM CHOW AND ANOTHER v. LING KAM TONG, VICTOR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 72
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP105/2025

Although Clause 17 is an exclusive BVI jurisdiction clause by construction, the court retains a discretion not to enforce it; taking account of claims against a third party who is a stranger to the trust, the risk of multiplicity of proceedings and the factors in the Spiliada analysis, the interests of justice justified declining to give effect to the EJC and keeping all related proceedings in Hong Kong; the Trustees failed to show an arguable defence and summary judgment for disclosure in Action (1) was properly entered; the intended appeals lacked a reasonable prospect of success and applic…
6 May 2021

TKCC v. CCWI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKFC 90
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15101/2018

Court allowed discovery from November 2014 to present because there was evidence of substantial transfers to R2, including a Shenzhen purchase in March 2015, making earlier disclosure relevant and necessary; set a monetary threshold of HK$50,000 per bank transaction to balance proportionality; ordered questionnaires to be served within 7 days and answered within 42 days; costs of the summons to be in the cause with certificate for one counsel.
8 Jan 2013

CK v. TCH

Citation

CK v. TCH
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5240/2011

The respondent failed to establish any legal privilege or valid reason to withhold the settlement terms and mischaracterised the bank's letter; the documents and information sought were material to the wife's ancillary reliefs; there was on the available evidence a real risk of dissipation of assets (multiple property disposals at undervalue, unaccounted proceeds and documentary date discrepancies) and the balance of convenience favoured preservation of assets; accordingly discovery was ordered and the interim Mareva injunction was continued until final determination, with costs against the r…
20 Nov 2008

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. ERNST & YOUNG (A HONG KONG FIRM)

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. ERNST & YOUNG (A HONG KONG FIRM)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV233/2008

The applications were refused. The court held that where a liquidator fails to demonstrate that examinations under section 221 were conducted for the dominant purpose of litigation, transcripts and notes are not automatically privileged and the court may order their disclosure; the procedural prejudice of delay outweighed speculative risk of misuse.
2 Mar 2001

CHUNG CHIU HA v. BILLY KAI TSOI

Citation

CHUNG CHIU HA v. BILLY KAI TSOI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV611/2000

The appeal is dismissed: the Court upheld the Deputy Judge's refusal to order production of bank statements because they are of little practical use on their own; refused disclosure of Hung Hing's records because beneficial ownership was shown to lie with a third party and no evidence of contrivance existed; refused broader disclosure from remote joint venture companies because the respondent's interest was too indirect; and refused admission of late evidence on appeal because it could and should have been produced below.
2 Mar 2001

SO Chun Man Paul and Another v. The Incorporated Owners of Chee On Building

Citation

SO Chun Man Paul and Another v. The Incorporated Owners of Chee On Building
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM43/1999

Applications dismissed because statutory and procedural prerequisites were unmet: s.10(2)(b)(ii) could not be invoked absent a s.10(2)(b)(i) production order, no valid O.24 r.10(1) notice was served for pleaded documents, O.24 r.11(3) affidavit and O.24 r.13(1) necessity were not satisfied for inspection, and discovery under O.24 r.7(1) was unnecessary at this stage; limited inspection ordered by consent for specified items.
4 Mar 1999

CAC BRAKE CO. LTD. ZHUHAI v. LIANG JIN WEN AND OTHERS

Citation

CAC BRAKE CO. LTD. ZHUHAI v. LIANG JIN WEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4666/1997

The court refused to compel the solicitors to make an affirmation and disclose payment/source details because the disclosure sought was primarily to enable contempt proceedings and A v C was distinguishable; the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the summons for disclosure.
27 Jun 1991

TOURANI LACHHIRAM PARASRAM AND OTHERS v. KUSCENE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

TOURANI LACHHIRAM PARASRAM AND OTHERS v. KUSCENE DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV57/1991

The Court held the Tribunal did not err: refusal to order further discovery was a proper exercise of discretion because the additional accounts sought were only of very marginal relevance and not necessary for a fair determination; on the evidence (disclosed balance sheets, loan deed and intercompany undertakings) Kuscene had a genuine intention and a reasonable prospect of obtaining finance to carry out the redevelopment; appeal dismissed.
16 Oct 1985

SOUTH CHINA PRINTING CO. v. MELVYN A. HOPPER t/a EURSIA PUBLISHING CORPORATION

Citation

SOUTH CHINA PRINTING CO. v. MELVYN A. HOPPER t/a EURSIA PUBLISHING CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA14546/1983

Adjournment refused and defence and counterclaim struck out because the defendant repeatedly and inadequately explained failure to comply with multiple orders (discovery, inspection and payment of agreed costs), and the asserted solicitor's lien and belated offers were insufficient to justify continued non-compliance or further delay.